The Areopagus 3-24-09
posted by Phil Lawson
3-24-09
Last Saturday evening, my now 3 year-old son (how time flies!) had reminded me that he needed to give Jesus a kiss before going to sleep---Dad had forgotten that evening---and part of his nighttime prayers are to give a picture of Jesus a kiss.
The next morning at the 10AM Mass, I joined 3 other parents in the entryway for the 2nd half of Mass—all with our rambunctious and noisy little ones. Of course, my son then very reverently knelt with his hands folded for the “Our Father”—a total reversal of the behavior that lead us to the back in the first place!
As you know, there’s never a dull moment raising children! And it’s amazing how they can go from frustrating you to melting your hearts. I wonder if that’s how God the Father feels about us much of the time?
Phil’s Tidbits:
So the doctors and the parents disagreed about whether this baby’s life was worth preserving---it gets taken to court---the parents desperately want to let their baby live—the court says, no—baby dies. Welcome to the modern world……
UK Parents Told by Court Their Baby Must Be Allowed to Die
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
BRITAIN, March 23, 2009 (LIfeSiteNews.com) - A seriously ill baby, known only as OT, died on Saturday in the U.K. after his parents lost a legal bid to keep him alive.
The nine-month-old boy suffered from mitochondrial disease, a rare metabolic disorder which resulted in brain damage and respiratory failure.
Two Court of Appeal judges refused the couple permission to challenge a decision by Mrs. Justice Parker of the High Court, made after a 10-day hearing, which gave the hospital treating the boy the right to stop the medical treatment that was keeping him alive.
His parents reportedly were "deeply distressed" by the court's decision to end their baby's treatment and thereby his life. In a statement, the parents said that only one other child with the same condition had been identified by modern medicine and everyone was in "unknown territory."
"We are and always will be convinced that, despite his desperate problems, his life is worthwhile and is worth preserving as long as it is possible to do so without causing him undue pain.
"That was the real argument between us and the doctors - they think his life is intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose; but we, along with some of the nurses, believed that he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free.
"Our belief in his humanity and inherent worth justified us taking every step to support him."
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which represents doctors involved in the case, said in a UK Telegraph report, "Cases like this are very distressing and we have every empathy with the parents, but when the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount."
Alex Schadenberg, chairman of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented on the court decision, saying, "The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is shocked that a High Court ruling in the UK would determine that a child who is disabled from a rare metabolic disorder is better off dead. It is very sad when parents make decisions to give up on a child with a disability, but it is shocking when the courts Court imposes death on the child, against the wishes of the child's loving parents.
"How is it possible that a court could impose death upon a vulnerable child? It is simply unbelievable."
The parents told the BBC, through spokesman Christopher Cuddihee of Kaim Todner: "During his short time with us OT became the focus of our lives.
"We were present during his last moments, together with O's extended family.
"He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life."
Richard Doerflinger was among the six award recipients. He is an under-the-radar pro-life hero. His day job is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for almost 29 years
Life Prizes
Lopez: What’s something near no one knows that you wish they did?
Doerflinger: I wish people realized how many times the Catholic Church has been proved right in its predictions about various directions being bad for us as a society. We said the widespread distribution of contraception would increase temptations to abortion and divorce, mislead people into thinking they could have sex without consequences, and threaten to trivialize sexuality. Is it possible to deny this has happened? We said depersonalizing reproduction through technologies such as in vitro fertilization would lead us to experiment on human embryos and tempt us to try human cloning. We said embryonic-stem-cell research was not only immoral but was being used to make promises of “miracle cures” that people couldn’t keep. In a way it’s frustrating to be right so often in these dire predictions, especially when hardly anyone ever comes back later and says “Gee, sorry, you Catholics were right.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWFkMjQ2YmE2NTA2NTYyMGRmYmM4NTA0ZWY3ZjZiNTM=
God Bless you!
Phil Lawson For the latest info on St. Peter’s, check out the parish website: www.saintpetercatholic.com (You can also find old editions of the Areopagus here)
The Areopagus is a regular email for adults that includes various reflections, tidbits, news and events. Hope you find it fruitful!
If you would like to be added to this list, send an email to lawsphil@gmail.com
On the other hand, if you would like to be removed, send an email to the same address indicating that.
Last Saturday evening, my now 3 year-old son (how time flies!) had reminded me that he needed to give Jesus a kiss before going to sleep---Dad had forgotten that evening---and part of his nighttime prayers are to give a picture of Jesus a kiss.
The next morning at the 10AM Mass, I joined 3 other parents in the entryway for the 2nd half of Mass—all with our rambunctious and noisy little ones. Of course, my son then very reverently knelt with his hands folded for the “Our Father”—a total reversal of the behavior that lead us to the back in the first place!
As you know, there’s never a dull moment raising children! And it’s amazing how they can go from frustrating you to melting your hearts. I wonder if that’s how God the Father feels about us much of the time?
Phil’s Tidbits:
So the doctors and the parents disagreed about whether this baby’s life was worth preserving---it gets taken to court---the parents desperately want to let their baby live—the court says, no—baby dies. Welcome to the modern world……
UK Parents Told by Court Their Baby Must Be Allowed to Die
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
BRITAIN, March 23, 2009 (LIfeSiteNews.com) - A seriously ill baby, known only as OT, died on Saturday in the U.K. after his parents lost a legal bid to keep him alive.
The nine-month-old boy suffered from mitochondrial disease, a rare metabolic disorder which resulted in brain damage and respiratory failure.
Two Court of Appeal judges refused the couple permission to challenge a decision by Mrs. Justice Parker of the High Court, made after a 10-day hearing, which gave the hospital treating the boy the right to stop the medical treatment that was keeping him alive.
His parents reportedly were "deeply distressed" by the court's decision to end their baby's treatment and thereby his life. In a statement, the parents said that only one other child with the same condition had been identified by modern medicine and everyone was in "unknown territory."
"We are and always will be convinced that, despite his desperate problems, his life is worthwhile and is worth preserving as long as it is possible to do so without causing him undue pain.
"That was the real argument between us and the doctors - they think his life is intolerable and that his disability is such that his life has little purpose; but we, along with some of the nurses, believed that he experiences pleasure and that he has long periods where he was relaxed and pain free.
"Our belief in his humanity and inherent worth justified us taking every step to support him."
A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association, which represents doctors involved in the case, said in a UK Telegraph report, "Cases like this are very distressing and we have every empathy with the parents, but when the parents and the clinical team don't agree on the treatment for the child in question, the only way forward is to go to the courts and for the courts to decide on what is in the best interests of the child, which is paramount."
Alex Schadenberg, chairman of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, commented on the court decision, saying, "The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is shocked that a High Court ruling in the UK would determine that a child who is disabled from a rare metabolic disorder is better off dead. It is very sad when parents make decisions to give up on a child with a disability, but it is shocking when the courts Court imposes death on the child, against the wishes of the child's loving parents.
"How is it possible that a court could impose death upon a vulnerable child? It is simply unbelievable."
The parents told the BBC, through spokesman Christopher Cuddihee of Kaim Todner: "During his short time with us OT became the focus of our lives.
"We were present during his last moments, together with O's extended family.
"He died peacefully. We will miss him greatly and wish to say that we are proud to have known our beautiful son for his brief life."
Richard Doerflinger was among the six award recipients. He is an under-the-radar pro-life hero. His day job is associate director of the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he has worked for almost 29 years
Life Prizes
Lopez: What’s something near no one knows that you wish they did?
Doerflinger: I wish people realized how many times the Catholic Church has been proved right in its predictions about various directions being bad for us as a society. We said the widespread distribution of contraception would increase temptations to abortion and divorce, mislead people into thinking they could have sex without consequences, and threaten to trivialize sexuality. Is it possible to deny this has happened? We said depersonalizing reproduction through technologies such as in vitro fertilization would lead us to experiment on human embryos and tempt us to try human cloning. We said embryonic-stem-cell research was not only immoral but was being used to make promises of “miracle cures” that people couldn’t keep. In a way it’s frustrating to be right so often in these dire predictions, especially when hardly anyone ever comes back later and says “Gee, sorry, you Catholics were right.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWFkMjQ2YmE2NTA2NTYyMGRmYmM4NTA0ZWY3ZjZiNTM=
God Bless you!
Phil Lawson For the latest info on St. Peter’s, check out the parish website: www.saintpetercatholic.com (You can also find old editions of the Areopagus here)
The Areopagus is a regular email for adults that includes various reflections, tidbits, news and events. Hope you find it fruitful!
If you would like to be added to this list, send an email to lawsphil@gmail.com
On the other hand, if you would like to be removed, send an email to the same address indicating that.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Fr. Derek Sakowski
posted by Webmaster
Today President Obama issued an executive order to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. This is a controversial issue that is usually misunderstood, and I thought it would be helpful to offer some clarifications.
(1) What are stem cells? Stem cells are cells that are not yet “differentiated.” In everyday language, they are not yet “programmed” to be a certain kind of cell (brain, nerve, heart, etc). Therefore scientists seek to find ways to use these cells to heal various illnesses and disabilities by “programming” them into the needed kind of cells.
(2) There are different sources from which scientists can obtain stem cells. The three main ways currently being used are from a newly conceived human embryo, from adults, and from the blood in an umbilical cord.
(3) There are no serious moral concerns about acquiring stem cells from adults or umbilical cords. Taking them from human embryos, however, requires killing an innocent human being, and is therefore murder.
(4) Some might contest my claim, but I defy anyone to tell me when human life begins, if not at the moment of fertilization! If I play my life backwards, one moment at a time, it is obvious that I began to exist as a human being the moment I was conceived. There is no other possible moment that one could claim as the beginning of human life.
(5) The only serious objection I have ever heard on this point is the claim that human life only begins 14 days after conception – when twinning is no longer possible. Their argument is that one embryo can still split into two up until those 14 days are complete. Admittedly, in the case of identical twins it is not easy to explain their “personal status” before and after the big split.
However, very few of us are identical twins! For all the rest of us, we began to exist at conception, and there was no change in our personal status at any time during those first 14 days of our existence. I am the same person I was 5 seconds after my conception.
(6) Obama’s executive order today was not a legalization of embryonic stem cell research. It was already legal, and has been going on with private (or state) funding for several years now. What he is doing is allowing federal tax money to be spent towards this research.
(7) Research companies are now stumbling over each other to get to the front of the line for receiving federal grants from the $787 Billion “Stimulus Package,” which should soon to be passed.
(8) I sincerely hope that "stimulus" funds are not used for this purpose, but given the timing it seems obvious that they will. I cannot see how spending federal tax money on embryonic stem cell research would stimulate the economy! In fact, it seems to me that with an $11 Trillion national debt and struggling economy this would be tax money better used elsewhere.
(9) To date, despite years of embryonic stem cell research, even despite a $3 Billion grant from the State of California, scientists have not had a single breakthrough in treating patients. None.
(10) By contrast, adult stem cell treatments have resulted in 73 successful treatments!
(11) In spite of this shocking disparity, some research companies (and most media professionals) insist that embryonic stem cell research has greater potentiality for cures. They call embryonic stem cells “pluripotent,” (they can be made into ANY organ) while adult stem cells are only “multipotent” (can only be made into tissue from the area from which they were drawn).
(12) Dr. James Thompson (Univ of Wisconsin) and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka (Japan) have both successfully altered adult stem cells into pluripotent cells, and insist that the process could be replicated.
(13) Even in spite of that breakthrough, and in spite of all the moral protests, some scientists, along with President Obama, still insist that billions of dollars must be spent on embryonic stem cell research.
(14) Here is why I think that so many companies prefer embryonic stem cell research. If your company is the one to have a major breakthrough, “creating” a line of stem cells that is able to cure a major disease, then you can patent those cells. In short, you’re rich.
They cannot, however, patent adult stem cells because those cells happen to be attached to the bodies of their owners.
Thus, even though there are 73 adult stem cell cures to 0 for embryonic stem cell research, universities and companies are much more eager for the embryonic approach. That’s where the money interest is. I have no proof, of course, but human nature is human nature, and business is business.
(16) Science is a wonderful thing, but is falling into the trap that “If we CAN do it, then it’s OKAY to do it.” Even if cures do begin to emerge from embryonic stem cell research, it is not morally justifiable. None of us (I hope) would be willing to murder our own brother or sister in order to be able to walk again. Why is it okay to kill human beings who just happen to be smaller and hidden away in a laboratory?
In the words of Dr. Seuss, “A person’s a person, no matter how small!”
For a much more in-depth discussion, see http://www.stemcellresearch.org
(1) What are stem cells? Stem cells are cells that are not yet “differentiated.” In everyday language, they are not yet “programmed” to be a certain kind of cell (brain, nerve, heart, etc). Therefore scientists seek to find ways to use these cells to heal various illnesses and disabilities by “programming” them into the needed kind of cells.
(2) There are different sources from which scientists can obtain stem cells. The three main ways currently being used are from a newly conceived human embryo, from adults, and from the blood in an umbilical cord.
(3) There are no serious moral concerns about acquiring stem cells from adults or umbilical cords. Taking them from human embryos, however, requires killing an innocent human being, and is therefore murder.
(4) Some might contest my claim, but I defy anyone to tell me when human life begins, if not at the moment of fertilization! If I play my life backwards, one moment at a time, it is obvious that I began to exist as a human being the moment I was conceived. There is no other possible moment that one could claim as the beginning of human life.
(5) The only serious objection I have ever heard on this point is the claim that human life only begins 14 days after conception – when twinning is no longer possible. Their argument is that one embryo can still split into two up until those 14 days are complete. Admittedly, in the case of identical twins it is not easy to explain their “personal status” before and after the big split.
However, very few of us are identical twins! For all the rest of us, we began to exist at conception, and there was no change in our personal status at any time during those first 14 days of our existence. I am the same person I was 5 seconds after my conception.
(6) Obama’s executive order today was not a legalization of embryonic stem cell research. It was already legal, and has been going on with private (or state) funding for several years now. What he is doing is allowing federal tax money to be spent towards this research.
(7) Research companies are now stumbling over each other to get to the front of the line for receiving federal grants from the $787 Billion “Stimulus Package,” which should soon to be passed.
(8) I sincerely hope that "stimulus" funds are not used for this purpose, but given the timing it seems obvious that they will. I cannot see how spending federal tax money on embryonic stem cell research would stimulate the economy! In fact, it seems to me that with an $11 Trillion national debt and struggling economy this would be tax money better used elsewhere.
(9) To date, despite years of embryonic stem cell research, even despite a $3 Billion grant from the State of California, scientists have not had a single breakthrough in treating patients. None.
(10) By contrast, adult stem cell treatments have resulted in 73 successful treatments!
(11) In spite of this shocking disparity, some research companies (and most media professionals) insist that embryonic stem cell research has greater potentiality for cures. They call embryonic stem cells “pluripotent,” (they can be made into ANY organ) while adult stem cells are only “multipotent” (can only be made into tissue from the area from which they were drawn).
(12) Dr. James Thompson (Univ of Wisconsin) and Dr. Shinya Yamanaka (Japan) have both successfully altered adult stem cells into pluripotent cells, and insist that the process could be replicated.
(13) Even in spite of that breakthrough, and in spite of all the moral protests, some scientists, along with President Obama, still insist that billions of dollars must be spent on embryonic stem cell research.
(14) Here is why I think that so many companies prefer embryonic stem cell research. If your company is the one to have a major breakthrough, “creating” a line of stem cells that is able to cure a major disease, then you can patent those cells. In short, you’re rich.
They cannot, however, patent adult stem cells because those cells happen to be attached to the bodies of their owners.
Thus, even though there are 73 adult stem cell cures to 0 for embryonic stem cell research, universities and companies are much more eager for the embryonic approach. That’s where the money interest is. I have no proof, of course, but human nature is human nature, and business is business.
(16) Science is a wonderful thing, but is falling into the trap that “If we CAN do it, then it’s OKAY to do it.” Even if cures do begin to emerge from embryonic stem cell research, it is not morally justifiable. None of us (I hope) would be willing to murder our own brother or sister in order to be able to walk again. Why is it okay to kill human beings who just happen to be smaller and hidden away in a laboratory?
In the words of Dr. Seuss, “A person’s a person, no matter how small!”
For a much more in-depth discussion, see http://www.stemcellresearch.org
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
This Stevens Point Website designed by Promotion Web Design
